neverendeonfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:The Charter of The Company
Does anyone have any good ideas for the Bylaws? Eonrpg 04:03, January 5, 2011 (UTC) I'm inclined to have someone observe the next couple of sessions involving internal debate and formalize any rules that we seem to have already implemented informally. Since most of the regular readers of the wiki are officers and/or sick, and from a very small segment of the Eon population, any bylaws suggested by *us* would have to wait until wider discussion amongst the party. "Don't be a dick", while commendable, is a stupid bylaw. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Should "shares" under Article VIII be termed "dividends"? AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *Dividends are covered under section seven of article eight. "Stock," in this case, refers to the company's physical "stock," that is, items or currency possessed by the Party. The party is not entitled to issue dividend-paying stock (modern "stocks") or to sell redeemable or tradable stock or futures, as limited by article three. Section one of article eight empowers the company to release shares of that stock, company items, for any purpose they deem necessary. Sections 2-6 are rules governing the enforcement of article 13, section 5. Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) While writing theses, I'm torn between deliberately writing in loopholes for players to discover and exploit and locking it down tight in legalese. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) :I'm reading this, but I don't expect any new suggested rules I come up with to be taken as in good faith, so I'm not going to bother. I'll respond to others' suggestions, though; feel free to ignore my responses as you will. Chimegumi 04:44, January 6, 2011 (UTC) ---- Transfer of representation AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Any meeting that does anything must have all party members present, barring absence of player or the transfer of representation. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *Are we okay with a attendance clause? This involves amending article seven, section five. Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) Shareholders (1) may temporarily transfer their vote/right of representation to another shareholder (2) with (1)'s permission if (1) is unable to attend a meeting. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *Love the idea, but there is no such thing as "shareholders." Do we mean "company members," or are we limiting transfer of representation powers to non-censured members under article 8, section 6? In any case, we need a snugglesworth/snake/liquid/sam bylaw. Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) Transfer of vote/representation may only be in effect for one meeting. Continuing transfer is only allowed in the case of prolonged separation from meeting due to capture, imprisonment, sequester, or absence on a mission for the party. Continuing transfer shall be in writing witnessed by one other shareholder (3) or an accredited notary, or verbally witnessed by two other shareholders. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *Love it. Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) Shareholders separated from the party due to death in action shall be resurrected before any meetings/share allocations involving capital they helped acquire shall be distributed, barring said shareholders leaving the party while dead. ''AlanChu 09:09, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Leaving the party AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) ''Shareholders who want to leave the party give up all rights according to the charter. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Shares cannot be transferred in wills, nor made hereditary. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) There will be no retirement benefits granted to former shareholders or dependents. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Leeching AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Transformation of a shareholder into a form that negates their effectiveness in combat, negotiations, ect, barring death, shall, by a majority vote of the officers, be deemed crippled and have their shares held in abeyance until such time, again by majority vote of the officers, that they are able to materially contribute. ''AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) :I don't support this. If a party member is crippled against their will (''baleful polymorph, san points, physical crippling, etc.) then that isn't their fault and they should not be penalized. If they are long-term unable to do anything to help the party, that's the point at which we need to be talking if they should go recover somewhere, and we don't need to force them out. I might support a similar rule for long-term pronounced willful refusal to assist the party, but not for things out of individuals' control. Chimegumi 04:44, January 6, 2011 (UTC) :Crippled against their will: duh. Baleful Poly, ect: they can still contribute in those suggested cases. Sure, add in a clause guaranteeing funds for recovery. AlanChu 09:09, January 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Requested wording for recovery clause: "as much as reasonably possible the party will pay for the therapy/healing/recovery/restoration of any party member's injuries (physical, magical, mental etc) sustained in the line of duty. If a party member decides to retire the party will make a reasonable contribution to that party member's therapy/healing/recovery/restoration." Chimegumi 09:13, January 6, 2011 (UTC) ::*This bylaw would require an amendment to the article eight, section six, giving the officers the power to withhold shares. Currently payment withholding requires "an affirmative majority vote of all company members." If you want a "crippled" clause without changing voting structure, try to add "or disability" after "censure." Otherwise, all this Bylaw does is expand executive powers. Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) Personal development grants AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) The CFO shall have the right to use party funds to purchase equipment for the use of party members. AlanChu 09:09, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *Redundant. Already granted in article eight, section 1 and 4. Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) The CFO can only use party funds to pay up to 50% of the purchase price of the item. In extraordinary circumstances, with support of the CTO, this limit may be increased up to 100% of the purchase price. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) : The party fully funding items seemed more normal than that. I certainly did it repeatedly as CFO. In any case, in the past we've had the CTO put in a request and the CFO determine how much he's willing to fund, and I think that's how this should continue to be done. Chimegumi 04:44, January 6, 2011 (UTC) : :* I like this limitation, but this would first require an amendment to article seven, section seven, requiring there to be a CTO. Might you consider "with the support of the board of officers," or "with the support of whomsoever the board of officers, the sole proprietor, or persuant bylaws shall empower to determine the application of extraordinary circumstance powers" ? Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) The CTO and CEO reserves the right to repossess items purchased with such grants if in the opinion of the CTO/CEO said item is being underutilized, use of the item is abused, or the item proves to be a danger to the welfare of the company and/or shareholders. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) : This worried me a bit, but the balance is good. I'd almost wonder if this should be between the CEO and the CTO, since it's personnel and not as much financial (if we're really just taking it back because it's not being used or it's being used wrong, whether we'd gain from selling it shouldn't be relevant) but CFO and CTO works. Chimegumi 04:44, January 6, 2011 (UTC) : Actually I think we should only have the right to repossess items the party fully paid for. Otherwise there's something hanging over people's heads if we just help them buy things they wanted anyway, and it will make it more likely people will go underequipped until they can afford the item's full purchase price. I know it means we might eat some items that we help pay for but then don't see anything back from, but I'd rather have that than have the grant system be underutilized out of fear of repossession. I do think it's reasonable that if we paid a percentage of the cost of an item, we should get that percentage of the profits if the possessor chooses to sell it. Chimegumi 21:49, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Officer Authority Bylaws AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) There shall be, from time to time, chiefs who shall have Right of Command, in certain prescribed situations, over the Corporation. Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) No bylaw, contract, or agreement shall grant any company member or officer veto power. Eonrpg 23:16, January 8, 2011 (UTC) Except when otherwise prescribed by the Charter or the Bylaws, the Chief Executive Officer shall have Right of Command, the power to arbitrate conflicts, the power of termination, the power to interpret this charter, the right to choose route and destination, and all other powers not listed here and not requiring action by the Board, the Sole Proprietor, or the Corporation as a whole. The CEO may, from time to time, delegate these rights and powers on an at-will basis. Eonrpg 23:16, January 8, 2011 (UTC) Except when otherwise prescribed by the Charter or the bylaws, the Chief Financial Officer shall have Right of Command in financial situations, and shall have the power of contract. Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) Except when otherwise prescribed by the Charter or the bylaws, a Chief Tactical Officer, if appointed, shall have the Right of Command in combat situations. AlanChu 09:09, January 6, 2011 (UTC), clause added Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) : I'm not sure it should switch to the CTO if, say, we're having a social challenge and Leilah thinks we're going to get knifed. On the field of battle, however, absolutely. Also, can we clarify if the CEO gets right of command when the party is acting as a group in a non-combat situation (talking to authorities comes to mind as the most obvious example; I can provide others if necessary.) Ethan definitely acted as our representative, and it very much seemed part of the job when I took it, but people very much seemed to resent Ashra doing that part of the job. I know my Bluff check sucks (though I'd like to note that I also had twice as much to lie about; everyone else could say who they were and what they were doing without having to lie) but I was under the impression that's part of the job. Also, we might consider a similar rule to the CTO rule stating that if we have a Chief Naval Officer, they have command at sea. Not relevant right now, but has been in the past. Chimegumi 04:44, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Except when otherwise prescribed by the Chrarter or the bylaws, a Chief Naval Officer, if appointed, shall have the Right of Command while at sea, including naval combat. Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) Except when otherwise prescribed by the Charter or the bylaws, a Chief Legal Officer, if appointed, shall have the power to interpret this charter, and shall have right of contract. Eonrpg 23:16, January 8, 2011 (UTC) In the case of the death, capture, disability or censure of the CEO, the CFO shall have temporary Right of Command as CEO. If the CFO shall also be dead, captured, disabled or censured, then the most senior officer shall have temporary Right of Command as CEO. If there is no senior officer, then the most senior company member shall have temporary Right of Command as CEO. In case of a tie in seniority, the wiser of the two shall have temporary Right of Command as CEO. '' Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) ''If any vote, either by party members or by the Board, shall result in a tie, the CEO shall decide. ''Eonrpg 23:19, January 8, 2011 (UTC) Never leave a man/woman/child/creature/entity behind AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) ''If a shareholder is captured in the course of their normal , don't talk about the party. *I don't think we can mandate this. Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) We'll get you out as soon as reasonably possible with a chance of success. Your suffering during your imprisonment will also determine how quickly we extract you. AlanChu 03:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC) : Good rule, though written colloquially. How does this interface with your apparent desire to reserve the right to say "Fuck you, I'm leaving you to die and commanding the party to do the same"? (A threat/statement/command Leilah made to Ashra if she acted to pursue her family.) If we're going to give out the promise "We will come and save you when we can", then I'd like to know under what circumstances that gets revoked. And whether there'll be similar laws about not leaving party members to die, and/or supporting them in combat. Chimegumi 04:44, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Additional suggestions, written colloquially because I want someone in better standing to rewrite them if they're going to be accepted; I don't want this stuff tainted by who wrote it Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *If we have a CNO and a CTO we should resolve who has authority in naval battles Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *To what extent if any are party members expected to obey officers if it's not in their explicit sphere of influence? Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) **and does that mean they ever have to listen to the CEO since I don't seem to have an explicit sphere of influence? Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) ***do I get one? Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *I want a necessary and proper clause Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) **spoilers: don't give me one Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) ***but I do want it to be a bit clearer what the CEO is supposed/allowed to do so that people will stop getting on my back for doing it Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *Do we want to formalize the process by which Ashra was suspended? if an officer is, in the judgment of the majority of the party (including some number of officers?) not capable of doing their job due to temporary injury, or they're just fucking their job up, suspension from duties for a number of episodes (treated as a normal party member, oh and can we put in that they shouldn't do treasure allocation during those episodes unless it's a prohibitively long time because that would be a dick move) and then probation (they do their job but can be overruled) Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) **Ohhh, looks like somebody forgot to read article seven, sections three and five. :) Eonrpg 12:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC) ***I saw that we have the right reserved to remove someone. I meant formalizing the suspension/probation aspect we used. But we can probably come up with that on a case by case basis anyway, it doesn't have to be its own bylaw, since if anyone else gets removed it'll probably be for different reasons and need a different solution. Chimegumi 20:36, January 8, 2011 (UTC) *If party members have a dispute, does the CEO arbitrate? that seemed to be how Cicero handled it between me and Aether since he was temp CEO at the time. it seemed to work ok, especially if either both parties or a majority of the party has to agree the arbitration's result is ok. (or, ideally, just accept what the arbitrator says because they're the arbitrator, but I get the feeling that'll be fine while Cicero leads and somehow unacceptable once it's me) Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *Does the CEO get to speak for the party in diplomatic negotiation type stuff unless there's an explicit reason why he shouldn't? Ethan definitely did this but as mentioned above the party is constantly yelling at me if I do it. I thought it was part of the position. If it's not then I don't see who makes sense to do that. There could be provisions allowing them to delegate and allowing for the party to do something if a majority of the party don't agree to what the CEO is accepting diplomatically, or something Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) *This is the big one: back in the day, even in evil-party self-centered Season 7, plenty of party members ran off on their own when something was really important to them: off the top of my head, there's Ethan and every damn dargon, and Claire going after her house and then Malicor. The general party attitude was that this kinda sucked but as long as they weren't doing it maliciously to get the party in trouble, we came to get them and make sure they made it out alive. Sometimes that meant dragging Ethan bodily away from a dragon, or shoving Malicor through a portal and knocking Claire out so she'd chill, but the party did not abandon its own. I really like that attitude, and would gladly go save Leilah if she runs off after Anahita, or Cicero if he runs off after ... dwarven women ... I dunno what the freshmen's plots are, man, but the point is I'd be willing to take the party after each of its members if necessary. One for all and all for one, and all that. But it seems like at least in my case, there's a movement towards "if you're running off, either you're passive-aggressively dragging us into this, or we should leave you to die." I don't know if this is only for me, because the party doesn't find my brothers as "fun" to fight as dragons, or if this is a party-wide sentiment and you'd leave each other to die too. If the general sentiment really has changed to "each man for himself", we should codify that ... but I'd really prefer to codify the old way, that we're here for people even if they have to go do crazy things, as long as they aren't doing it intentionally to fuck everyone over. Ashra may not be remotely Good-aligned, but she'd rather fight for her friends and know they have her back if she has to chase her brothers around to find her mom. I'd guess most of the characters feel the same way, especially if they're considering taking care of each other rather than someone unpopular like Ashra (who is really the extreme case). Anyway I think this should be hashed out among the party and codified; I want to know what kind of people I'm traveling with. Chimegumi 21:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Senior officers? Chimegumi 01:31, January 22, 2012 (UTC) *I propose that we make a new category of "senior officers" who take 3 shares each at loot distribution. (This requires amendment to the charter, hence why I'm proposing it here.) The category could be based on how long the character has been with the Company (a minimum of two seasons as a non-guest star? something like that?), or maybe the core three roles that take the most responsibility (CEO/CFO/CTO), or maybe just the X longest-running officers in the Company. I'm open to different definitions as long as we all agree on one. I'm proposing this because when the party gets big, and there are many officers (we currently have four counting the CLO, Kanye will probably make officer within s14, Aether was pushing for it and may make it in s15, etc.), those of us who've been around forever get a bit screwed over by the reverse seniority thing. Chimegumi 01:30, January 22, 2012 (UTC)